Mere Irregularities Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy Against Private Vendor Without Cogent Proof – Allahabad High Court Discharges Infolink Director Ajay Mishra in NRHM HMIS Case

“Prosecution Based on Assumptions and Surmises Is an Abuse of Process” – In a significant judgment Allahabad High Court (Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh) quashed criminal charges against Ajay Mishra and M/s. Infolink Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., observing that "no material has been placed to demonstrate a meeting of minds or existence of any criminal conspiracy with public officials" in awarding a software development contract under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

The Court found that the basic ingredients of conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act were absent, stating that “the criminal prosecution of the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.”

The case stemmed from a CBI FIR dated June 11, 2014, registered against Ajay Mishra, Director of Infolink Consultancy, and several senior public officials of UP Electronics Corporation Ltd. (UPLC) and NRHM, alleging a criminal conspiracy in awarding a ₹5.25 crore HMIS (Hospital Management Information System) project for 15 district hospitals in Uttar Pradesh.

The CBI alleged that the work was awarded without following a transparent tender process, to a non-empanelled vendor, leading to a pecuniary loss of nearly ₹2 crore to the exchequer. A chargesheet was filed in 2017, and in March 2024, the Special Judge (CBI), Ghaziabad rejected the applicants’ discharge application. Charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were framed in April 2024.

On Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC:

The Court emphasized that "meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy" and "there is no material to show that a conspiracy had been hatched by the applicant."

Noting that the vendor had merely responded to an invitation and executed the work order, the Court observed:

“It is very common and general tendency that every private person keeps trying to get work order in his favour. That per se cannot amount to criminal conspiracy unless supported by concrete evidence.”

On Cheating under Section 420 IPC:

The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar that dishonest intention at the inception is essential to constitute cheating. It found:

“No case under Section 420 IPC is made out… The applicants had completed the assigned work within budget and no material has been brought to show that the Government was dishonestly induced to part with any money.”

The applicants, the Court noted, were paid less than the billed amount, and the Government had already applied deductions worth ₹1.08 crore for service issues.

On Forgery and Section 471 IPC:

The Court rejected the charge that false tender documents were used. Citing Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, it observed:

“If there is no false document, offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC are not made out. There is no evidence to suggest that any forged document was created or used dishonestly by the applicants.”

On Misuse of Office and Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act:

The Court made it clear that the applicants were private vendors and not public servants:

“There is no allegation that any bribe was given by the applicant to the authorities concerned for getting work order in his favour. Thus, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is not attracted.”

While arguments were raised about the retrospective application of the 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which omitted Section 13(1)(d), the Court refrained from delving into that legal controversy, noting:

“It is not necessary to decide the issue of retrospective applicability since even under the unamended provision, the essential ingredients of the offence are not made out.”

After reviewing the materials submitted by the prosecution, the Court pointed out multiple unrebutted factual findings that exonerated the applicants:

• The entire project was completed by Infolink within the approved budget.

• The vendor was already empanelled with UPLC at the time the work order was issued.

• The monitoring committee, which included top officials, approved the rates and survey reports after due consideration.

• “No pecuniary advantage was obtained dishonestly by the applicants,” the Court held, adding that any comparison with NIC’s older project or allegations of inflated pricing were speculative and lacked probative value.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted: “The conclusion drawn by the investigating officer is contrary to his own record… His views are based on conjectures and not on cogent legal evidence.”

He further emphasized: “The applicants’ role is distinct from public officials. Their prosecution, absent proof of conspiracy or dishonesty, would amount to harassment.”

The Allahabad High Court decisively intervened to protect a private individual from a prosecution built on assumption, suspicion, and administrative irregularities rather than legal wrongdoing. In doing so, it reminded investigating agencies that:

“Mere deviation from procedure, in absence of mens rea, cannot constitute a penal offence.”

Allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed both the discharge rejection and the framing of charges:

“Criminal prosecution of the applicants under the facts and material evidence relied upon by the CBI is abuse of the process of the Court… The applicants are accordingly discharged.”

Date of Decision: July 7, 2025